Alleged lack of judicial independence in criminal and administrative proceedings following the 2016 coup attempt in Türkiye

Facts

The authors, İ.K. and E.T., both Turkish nationals, claim that their right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal was violated due to political influence on the judiciary following the 2016 failed coup attempt.

İ.K., a former court clerk, was arrested in August 2016 on charges of membership in the Gülen movement, which Türkiye designated as a terrorist organisation (FETÖ). He was held without access to a lawyer for seven days and later placed in pre-trial detention. In March 2017, he was convicted and sentenced to nine years and nine months in prison, with the courts citing his alleged use of the ByLock messaging app and a witness statement. His appeals to the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court were rejected, with the latter allegedly failing to assess his arguments impartially.

E.T., a law graduate, was similarly dismissed from public service following the coup under Decree Law No. 672. Later, he was even barred from registering as a lawyer by the Istanbul Bar Association, despite a decision by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations allowing his registration. Following a motion by the Ministry of Justice, administrative courts ruled that E.T. was ineligible to practice law due to his prior dismissal from public service. His appeals, including to the Constitutional Court, were dismissed. He claims these dismissals demonstrate the lack of judicial independence in Türkiye. Both authors filed applications with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in 2019, which remained pending at the time of submission to the Committee.

In the present communication, the authors allege violations of article 14 of the Covenant, arguing that the lack of judicial independence in the State has deprived them of a fair trial.

Admissibility

The Committee declared the communications inadmissible under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, concluding that the same matters were already being examined by the ECtHR. It noted that both authors raised identical claims regarding the fairness and independence of judicial proceedings before the ECtHR and the Committee, satisfying the same matter requirement under article 5 (2) (a). As a result, the Committee was precluded from reviewing the communications. Given this finding, the Committee did not assess other grounds of inadmissibility.